Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:39:42 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/25] x86/asm: annotate indirect jumps On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:22:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:23:41AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > > > It would probably be good to keep LTO and non-LTO builds in sync about > > which files are subjected to objtool checks. So either you should be > > removing the OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD annotations for anything that > > is linked into the main kernel (which would be a nice cleanup, if that > > is possible), > > This, I've had to do that for a number of files already for the limited > vmlinux.o passes we needed for noinstr validation. Getting rid of OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD is indeed the end goal, though I'm not sure how practical that will be for some of the weirder edge case. On a related note, I have some old crypto cleanups which need dusting off. -- Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.